BOSTON —Three of Massachusetts’ leading employer organizations—Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, and Massachusetts Business Roundtable—have joined a growing coalition opposing a proposed statewide rent control ballot question.
The groups announced April 6 that they are aligning with Housing for Massachusetts, which was formed to oppose the measure mandating rent control policies across all 351 cities and towns in the state.
Together, the organizations represent thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands of workers across Massachusetts. They argue the proposal could negatively impact housing supply, economic growth, and the state’s ability to attract and retain talent.
Brooke Thomson, president and CEO of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said employers across the state are already struggling with housing affordability challenges.
“Employers across the state share the same challenge – their employees are having difficulty finding reasonably priced housing,” Thomson said. “The history of rent control in Massachusetts and elsewhere is clear: it leads to fewer available rental units, a steep drop in new construction, and lower quality homes.”
The proposed ballot question would cap annual rent increases based on changes in the Consumer Price Index—historically averaging about 2.58% over the past 20 years—with a maximum increase of 5%. The policy would apply statewide with no local opt-out provisions. Opponents say the measure’s limited exemptions mean that nearly all privately owned rental properties—including single-family homes, condominiums, and smaller multifamily buildings—would eventually fall under regulation.
Leaders in the life sciences sector also raised concerns about broader economic impacts. Kendalle Burlin O’Connell, CEO and president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, said the proposal could undermine the state’s innovation economy.
“Massachusetts didn’t become the world leader in biotech and life sciences by accident,” O’Connell said. “Rent control threatens that. We need more housing, built faster—not policies that have already failed the innovation economy.”
Opponents also point to historical precedent. Rent control was banned in Massachusetts by voters in the 1990s after decades of use. Research, including studies examining its impact in Cambridge, has suggested such policies can discourage investment in housing, reduce supply, and lower property values.
JD Chesloff, CEO of the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, said the state is at a critical juncture.
“Massachusetts is facing major challenges around cost of living, talent retention, and the high cost of doing business,” Chesloff said. “While housing affordability must be addressed, this proposal risks discouraging investment and creating long-term economic consequences.”
A study from the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, cited by opponents, estimates that rent control could reduce Massachusetts property values by as much as $300 billion over the next decade. Critics argue that such a decline could strain municipal budgets and shift tax burdens onto homeowners.
In opposing the measure, the three organizations join a broad coalition of business and real estate groups across the state, including the Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce, Charles River Regional Chamber of Commerce, Cranberry Country Chamber of Commerce, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Greater Boston Real Estate Board, Institute of Real Estate Management – Boston Chapter, Massachusetts Association of Realtors, Mass Landlords, MetroSouth Chamber of Commerce, NAIOP Massachusetts, Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce, Quincy Chamber of Commerce, Revere Chamber of Commerce, Shrewsbury Street Merchants Association, Small Property Owners Association, Tri-County Regional Chamber of Commerce, United Regional Chambers of Commerce, and Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce.
The ballot question is expected to be a major topic of debate as Massachusetts continues to grapple with rising housing costs and economic competitiveness.
